If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling nonprerennial [sic] seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing-and will continue to do-to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct [sic].

It's these times, when I see the wacko anti-GMO leftwing folks actually weirdly cross the line and end up with the wacko right wing folks.The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish, has been changed from its original origins to the standard we enjoy today.

It has nothing to do with either killing us or God. So won't both sides STFU.

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism. This was first done in 1973. You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism. This was first done in 1973. You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

From my first link:"Humans have been domesticating plants and animals since around 12,000 BC; the process of selective breeding, in which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is the oldest form genetic modification. "

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism. This was first done in 1973. You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".From my first link:"Humans have been domesticating plants and animals since around 12,000 BC; the process of selective breeding, in which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is the oldest form genetic modification. "

Selective breeding will yield a red tabby cat. But in order to make a cat glow in the dark, you need a GMO.

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism. This was first done in 1973. You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Don't skip the 50-60 years we spent making genetic freaks through radiation exposure. No one seems to complain about Ruby Red grapefruit.

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism. This was first done in 1973. You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".From my first link:"Humans have been domesticating plants and animals since around 12,000 BC; the process of selective breeding, in which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is the oldest form genetic modification. "

Selective breeding will yield a red tabby cat. But in order to make a cat glow in the dark, you need a GMO.

Selective breeding is GMO. GMO isn't necessarily selective breeding; just as a tabby is a cat but cat isn't necessarily a tabby.

someonelse:I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

Bith Set Me Up:someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism. This was first done in 1973. You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Don't skip the 50-60 years we spent making genetic freaks through radiation exposure. No one seems to complain about Ruby Red grapefruit.

Finding Organic Ruby Red grapefruit is the best.

GMO is going to be a key tool in keeping populations fed, not because of herbicide resistance or pesticide production, but because climate could change our cropland faster than we can use traditional breeding techniques to adapt.

And, you can use GMO to prove your rice or wheat has the genes you want (and it will be 100% rice or wheat), then take the originals and breed them together using good "old fashioned" breeding techniques.

And Neil makes a point I've tried to make, but I obviously lack the platform he has.

If you don't like corporate domination of agriculture, focus on that.

Have problems with monoculture? Focus on that.

Don't use GMO as a catch all for the things are are very wrong and problematic with our current food production system. Labeling isn't going to stop monoculture or even put a dent in Monsanto's or ConAgra's profits. Monsanto has "regular" seed stock you know, and ConAgra will still do whatever it is they do, they'll just use whatever crops they end up using for it.

lindalouwho:Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

lindalouwho:Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.

someonelse:lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

Bith Set Me Up:lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.

Pretty much that. Working in transplant research I have worked with a PHD, MD who believed in the great flood and working as an engineer I have worked with a peer who believe that there are internal combustion engines that run on water. I like NGT a lot, but being a scientist in one field does not make one a scientist in every field, and it is quite possible to have myopia even where the scientific method is involved.

Bith Set Me Up:lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.

lindalouwho:someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

someonelse:lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

someonelse:lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Maybe he means the proposed terminator seeds that have never been sold or developed commercially and there is a worldwide moratorium on them.

Or maybe he means annuals like most vegetables Americans are familiar with and the general objections some people have with hybrid seed stocks and farmers generally having to purchase seed year to year.

I've never heard a plant scientist or botanist or anyone except Neil here use the term "nonperennial".

lindalouwho:someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

OK, but Google brings up, almost exclusively, links to this same story. I see that he has strong opinions that seem well thought out. What I don't see is that he has any particular background in this subject that makes his opinion any more worthwhile than your average Joe who is well-read and interested in this subject. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Let's try this: NdGT is an expert in ballroom dancing because he has won awards for it. NdGT is an expert in GMOs because ..?...

someonelse:lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

OK, but Google brings up, almost exclusively, links to this same story. I see that he has strong opinions that seem well thought out. What I don't see is that he has any particular background in this subject that makes his opinion any more worthwhile than your average Joe who is well-read and interested in this subject. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Let's try this: NdGT is an expert in ballroom dancing because he has won awards for it. NdGT is an expert in GMOs because ..?...

I think he's trying to claim it's an appeal to authority. Which is rather off the mark, imo. An intelligent, well-researched opinion can be simply that. It just LOOKS like an appeal to authority because he happens to work in an intellectual field and the majority of anti-GMOers....well let's just say they aren't.

Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

Bith Set Me Up:lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.

Yet an astrophysicist could probably explain the functions of the various parts of a cell and a microbiologist could probably tell you how a star is formed.

Generally speaking, anyone with a PhD in one science has, at least, foundational knowledge of other sciences.

When NdT talks about GMO foods, he's not speaking from expertise, but from general scientific literacy.

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism. This was first done in 1973. You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Um, no. GMO is exactly what it says: genetically modified organism. Many GMO's involve simply modulating the expression of existing genes. You don't need a lot of fancy genetic modification to make a leaner cow or a bigger tomato, just turn on the right genes. What you're referring to is recombinant DNA technology, and we heard the same alarmism about it in the 70's that we do now. Genetic engineering is just an umbrella term to describe modifying an organism's genome through biotechnology. The only difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding is technique and precision.

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism. This was first done in 1973. You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Um, no. GMO is exactly what it says: genetically modified organism. Many GMO's involve simply modulating the expression of existing genes. You don't need a lot of fancy genetic modification to make a leaner cow or a bigger tomato, just turn on the right genes. What you're referring to is recombinant DNA technology, and we heard the same alarmism about it in the 70's that we do now. Genetic engineering is just an umbrella term to describe modifying an organism's genome through biotechnology. The only difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding is technique and precision.

Well that and sometimes combining organisms that aren't on the same branches of the genetic tree.

czetie:Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

How is this different than the current state of the seed production business in the world? How do you propose to change it?

Economies of scale in seed production have generally made it more profitable for a farmer to sell all of what he produces, rather than saving a portion of the seed for next year. I.E. his revenue lost by saving a portion of his seed is more than what it will cost him to purchase new seed, plus there is a lot of value added products in what he may purchase (seed treatments, assurances the seed he purchased is disease free, etc.)

Add in hybrid vigor considerations for what he grows, and unless he gets a premium for his produce, he's probably going to sell it all and buy new seed the next year.

Snapper Carr:Bith Set Me Up: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.

Yet an astrophysicist could probably explain the functions of the various parts of a cell and a microbiologist could probably tell you how a star is formed.

Generally speaking, anyone with a PhD in one science has, at least, foundational knowledge of other sciences.

When NdT talks about GMO foods, he's not speaking from expertise, but from general scientific literacy.

That's the problem. NdT is very intelligent, but he isn't an expert where GMOs are concerned.

czetie:Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

That is actually the point of the article. The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.

If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop. This isn't based on the same concept as DRM, which is artificial, but is a result of how the pesticide works biochemically. There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable. You have part of the concept backward. Monsanto seeds can be treated with other pesticides/herbicides but that would be a waste, however Monsanto pesticides (Roundup) can only be used with Monsanto seeds.

satanorsanta:czetie: Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.

That is actually the point of the article. The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.

If you want to use Roundup weed killer you need a roundup ready crop. This isn't based on the same concept as DRM, which is artificial, but is a result of how the pesticide works biochemically. There are 2 ways to get a roundup ready crop, 1: GMO, 2: develop resistance (selective breeding). GMO is faster and cheaper and more reliable. You have part of the concept backward. Monsanto seeds can be treated with other pesticides/herbicides but that would be a waste, however Monsanto pesticides (Roundup) can only be used with Monsanto seeds.